Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday September 06, 2007 @03:31PM
from the and-i-have-a-bridge-to-sell-you dept.

ExE122 writes "The Department of Homeland Security has "scrapped an ambitious anti-terrorism data-mining tool." The tool, called ADVISE, was being tested with live data rather than test data without having proper security in place. This program had already been under criticism by privacy advocates and members of Congress. However, according to the article, a DHS spokesman assures that the program will be restarted once the security and cost are re-evaluated."

The only effective solution will be to completely defund whatever department (or entire agency) where it pops up. After half of the government has gone bye-bye, the remaining agencies will be a little leery about accepting the program into their control.

Why would they need a government program when the commercial credit agencies already have years of experience with this. It always gives me a chuckle that these databases when maintained by government give libertarians the cold sweats, but private businesses *built* on making a profit off of mining and selling information about you seem to be a-okay.

I'm no Libertarian, but anyone collecting large amounts of data on my activities makes me nervous. I don't trust credit card companies any more than I trust governments, and I think strict controls must be enforced on how the data is used and who gets to see it, and harmonized methods of correcting bad data. Oh, and massive fines and jail sentences for those discovered misusing the data or inadequately securing it (that means making bureaucrats, politicians and corporate executives directly and completely responsible).

Oh, and massive fines and jail sentences for those discovered misusing the data or inadequately securing it

How's that gonna happen when the administration only has to whisper the words "National Security" and every bit of oversight is swept away?

Ultimately, that's what warrants are for. Not just for lawmen to get permission to snoop, but so that there's a record of it having happened at all.

Warrantless surveillance doesn't only mean that there's no controls over whether or not we're spied upon, but that we can't even ask the question. Is there any danger that would justify giving a government agency unlimited license to violate civil rights?

the solution is to make no request by a government agency, no matter how top secret, immune from judicial oversight.

That's already in the Constitution. But unfortunately, we've got one branch that doesn't care about the Constitution and another that refuses to do anything about it. And if the third makes a move, they're called "activist judiciary" and out of control. One more appointment by Branch #1 and that third branch might as well stay home.

It always gives me a chuckle that these databases when maintained by government give libertarians the cold sweats, but private businesses *built* on making a profit off of mining and selling information about you seem to be a-okay.

Point well taken, but have you ever tried filing a class-action lawsuit (or any other kind of lawsuit) against the government? Businesses built on making a profit want to do just that and don't want to be embroiled in legal proceedings that drain both their reputations and, more importantly, their wallets. Plus, if they lose a big one, they have to deal with the government then cracking down on their business practices with new restrictive legislation AFTER they have to pay out all the $$$$ to plaintif

Exactly! This sort of thing has "Big Brother" written all over it and, while U.S. citizens seem to be willing to trade at least some of their liberties for perceived increases in safety, they're still by-and-large skeptical of this sort of government oversight. However--and this is a big "however"--there are increased signs that government (not necessarily in the form of the Fed, but at state and local levels as well) is working on indoctrinating the next generation of voters into the "Big Brother is good

They're still collecting data from all the same data sources, they're just putting the data-mining tool on hold until they either clean up their act or rename the program to be less visible. So there's not much gain for your privacy except that they *might* not spread your data around as much when they restart.

It would be nice to say that "If we're lucky, it won't start up again until the Bush Administration is out of office", but that's not realistic - the folks who are doing this kind of thing won't stop

If I remember correctly there was this plan for a data-mining program called TIA (Total Information Awareness) but DHS promptly canceled the program after public outcry. Hmm, and then they start this program called ADVISE...... Nothing to see here, move along

Why would they bother when the NSA can do it for them?Guess who has been spying as a subcontractor? Verisign! [dailykos.com]

Welcome to MITM country.

The CALEA law covers data now, so virtually all of the USA Internet traffic can be effectively bugged, and there are no trustable third parties for SSL links. Where secure encryption is concerned, you are on your own.

Heh. The head of the IETF [networkworld.com] receives compensation from both Verisign and the NSA.

Not Exactly, if you watch Bourne Ultimatum, you see them using Echelon to find data; that is not DHS doing it, it's the cia, so.... They only move on or let go of technology when they get something better, this is the case and always has been... believe it, they are still listening and watching. BTW what does Dead Hooker Storage need with that data?

What makes you think that it needs revived? Packup some boxes. Change the name. Hell, even move it to a different department if you want, and you have plausable deniablity for a project's "cancelation."

No, this is a new program, which they're closing because of privacy and budget concerns. It was meant to replace the old program which was closed because of privacy and budget concerns. And to be sure, there will be another program which will be closed eventually because of privacy and budget concerns.

No, this is a new program, which they're closing because of privacy and budget concerns. It was meant to replace the old program which was closed because of privacy and budget concerns. And to be sure, there will be another program which will be closed eventually because of privacy and budget concerns.

When they first came here, this was all a free country. Everyone said they were daft to build a data-mining program in a free country, but they built in all the same, just to show us. It sank into the swamp due to privacy & budget concerns. So they built a second one. That sank into the swamp due to privacy & budget concerns. So they built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp due to privacy & budget concerns. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the most oppressive, easily abused, unseen, effective only against its citizens that paid for it data-mining program.

All the while, I'm sure it provided key figures more than ample opportunity to pad their retirement accounts with income derived from what amounts to a taxpayer-funded, three-ring circus. This isn't the only one, either. There's Halibarnum & Bailey's - they're doing a special showing in Iraq right now.

It's sad, but I do really think that both being black and being named Barack Hussein Obama pretty much nix any chance of him being elected regardless of any consideration of what kind of president he would be.

I was on the same list. I didn't really think anything about not being able to use the checkin machines until it happened with a second airline. I found out when I asked the ticket agent about it. He made a phone call and said "it's okay now" and gave me my boarding pass with the special "SSSS" marker which means you get extra security screening. As in getting wanded and patted down and having my carry-on searched and rubbed with the cloth swabs that get put in the chemical sniffer. That happened for a

From the summary above:
"However, according to the article, a DHS spokesman assures that the program will be restarted once the security and cost are re-evaluated."

From the article:"DHS spokesman Russ Knocke told The Associated Press on Wednesday the project was being dropped.
"ADVISE is not expected to be restarted," Knocke said."

The next sentance in the article is the problematic one.
"DHS' Science and Technology directorate "determined that new commercial products now offer similar functionality while costing significantly less to maintain than ADVISE."

So they're not restarting it, they are dropping it. They are not, however, dropping the functionality. Just moving to another platform.

No, this is a new program, which they're closing because of privacy and budget concerns. It was meant to replace the old program which was closed because of privacy and budget concerns. And to be sure, there will be another program which will be closed eventually because of privacy and budget concerns.

What this really does is ensure that every large defense contractor will get a slice of the pie. Rinse, lather and repeat.

For now they are the "good guys," but DHS is the KGB in America if we do not maintain vigilance.Expecting all government agencies to accept full oversight and have court approval, even if it's a secret court, for any and all domestic spying is just and reasonable. Expecting unpopular surveillance programs, such as TIA [wikipedia.org], to remain scrapped when the public demands they be scrapped, instead of split up and farmed to less scrutinized agencies is simply government accountability, not paranoia.

This is a good point. The main barrier to widespread spying on everything has likely been the relative impossibility of sifting through all the data the government has access to. Since this barrier is swiftly eroding, we need to think about other kinds of protections for our privacy, legal and otherwise.

When the Total Information Awareness program [wikipedia.org] (the one with the odd all-seeing-eye logo) was closed down, people were happy... but it came back, and now we're to believe it's permanently killed this time?

The whole method is flawed if you're going to let people become a threat and then try to find them. People aren't --contrary to popular belief-- born with an urge to commit acts of terrorism. The people who do the dirty work are typically the vulnerable, young and easy to incite. These people are in relatively great supply compared to the people organising and radicalising.

The real problem is the supply of money. Without money no terrorist network can function, training and supplying insurgents of any sort costs a heck of a lot to do. It's not about whichever ideal people think they're striving for, it's political manipulation and money behind it. The US would make more ground investigating the US bank accounts of certain very rich nations who export petrochemicals and use profits to make this whole thing happen. Terrorism isn't a standard response, it's a political attack and must not be treated like petty crime.

Interestingly, that's one of Ron Suskind's theses in his book One Percent Doctrine [google.com]. Basically, he shows that of all the pointless, paranoid things the Bush administration has done to combat "the war" on terror, using detailed financial records to roll up the nascent terrorist cells has been the only effective strategy. One that was done by using existing personnel and laws.

Okay, firstly, this thing is never going to catch any terrorists. As a technology, it doesn't pass the laugh test. It was a joke when it was called Total Information Awareness, and it's a joke now.

This is not new, however - the military/intelligence apparatus in the US exists, in large part, to subsidize the development of high tech industry. Every marketing company in the country would *love* to have a tool developed that will aggragate and mine in the kind of data that this system treats. Furthermore, these firms can just trade data with eachother or get it from their clients, they don't need any kind of intrusive surveillance laws to get it.

Yeah, it's a terrible thing, violation of civil rights, but, ya know.. what's the hourly rate and skillset for this thing! Is there a soda perk, or, do we all get our complimentary terror fighting machine gun!

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck the chances are pretty good that its a duck. It could be a duck billed pladypus but what are the odds ?
That is exactly what data mining is. If the data on which data mining algorithms are being run, is collected by legal means then data mining is a fair. If the data was collected by invasion of privacy in any way even running a sorting algorithm on it is unfair.
It is the data collection that is good or evil. Data mining is neither good not evil.